ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT

The March 6 editorial supporting the current Higher Education Act is
capricious. Using the law as a tool to "send messages" is a vile and evil
enterprise.

There are no laws against cheating on your spouse; does that mean the
editors support adultery? There are no laws against lying except in court;
does that mean the editors support fibbing every chance you get?

Those who support this nonsense seem to have the mote of prohibition so
firmly lodged in their eye that they can no longer tell the difference
between vice and crime.

Perhaps a reading of respected American jurist Lysander Spooner's 1875
essay, "Vices are Not Crimes," is in order. Spooner tells us that in vice,
the very essence of crime -- harm to another person or their property -- is
wanting. To make a crime of vice is to say falsehood is truth, Lysander
goes on to say.

To Spooner's insight one can add the ugliest aspect of the war on drugs --
that r to control what substance a man may put in his body, the state must
also control what ideas a man may put in his head.

The idea that the state ought to control the ideas of its citizens can be
found in the Communist Manifesto and Mao's Little Red Book, but I fail to
see it written into the U.S. Constitution.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form
of tyranny over the mind of man," said Thomas Jefferson.

Well, it took only 200 short years for moralists to bring back the tyranny
of thought control enforced by law -- just how free can Americans claim to be?

Restore our natural right to drugs. It is a right mankind has owned since
time began. Jefferson wrote the constitution with the idea that natural
rights were inalienable. Do they teach Jefferson in schools anymore, or has
Karl Marx's work gained more influence than Jefferson because it sends the
right message that the state has the right to control what ideas you put in
people's heads by sending messages through law?

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet our bodies
would be in such keeping as our souls are now," Thomas Jefferson said.

I guess it's useless to quote Jefferson to Americans, especially those who
would use the law as a tool to battle "evil." The problem is, as Jefferson
understood 200 years ago, that what constitutes "good" and "evil" -- like
"ugliness" and "beauty" -- are in the eye of the beholder.

Chris Buors

_____________________________________________________________________

In a recent editorial, The Review said that the Higher Education Act, which
deprives drug offenders of federal education funding, "seems to be working
fine just as it is -- discouraging drug use in a fair and well-organized
manner."

What's fair about it? It penalizes poor students and has absolutely no
effect on wealthy students. It penalizes pot smokers, but not murderers or
rapists. That's fair?

But of course, it's just more of the same drug war insanity we've had to
put up with for the last thirty years. It fits perfectly with the manner in
which our legal system dispenses "justice." Wealthy drug offenders get
treatment. Poor drug offenders get prison. Most of the drug users in
America are white, but most of the people in prison for drug offenses are
black or Hispanic.

Fair enough?

Ray Aldridge

______________________________________________________________________

I would like to thank The Review for the profile written about my new
chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy in Tuesday's issue. However,
my intentions for agreeing to the article were not fulfilled.

I do not seek publicity for myself, only for the cause for which I stand.
Before I even came to the university, there were students here lobbying
Delaware Undergraduate Student Council to endorse the repeal of the
drug-free provision of the Higher Education Act.

I do not wish to overshadow those members of our community and their
progress. I ask all of them, as well as anyone else that shares my concern
from any political or ideological background, to contact me and join me in
forming this important organization.

The HEA affects us all as college students. The issue stands: 8,000 of our
peers were automatically denied aid for school due to drug convictions.
This year, under the new, conservative administration, nearly 275,000 more
will not be receive the necessary aid for higher education because of the
drug-free provision.

This is not about being "tough on drugs," it's about access to education.
Federal aid should be need-based. Education has been proven as the best way
to reduce social problems in our country.

Why, then, is the federal government denying access from our peers that are
trying to turn their lives around?

I invite everyone to join SSDP and the fight against this unfair,
anti-youth legislation. In response to this paper's viewpoint on the HEA:
why only drug users? Why should someone who uses drugs automatically lose
aid when murderers, rapists, armed robbers, etc., are not denied aid?

As Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said when introducing the bill, you can be
jailed for lying about the drug question on the FAFSA, but that arrest
won't stop you from receiving aid the following year.

Prior to the HEA, judges were given discretion to deny youth financial aid
based on the severity of their crime. Should we be giving federal aid to
heroine dealers? Maybe not. But our government has a bad history of mixing
heroine dealers and marijuana users into the same classification.

The drug-free provision should be repealed from the HEA, and judges should
be left to decide whether or not criminals on an individual basis, from pot
smoking to DUI murderers, should receive government aid.

Zack Gold, Sophomore